Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Missile Gaps and Other Broken Promises

By Richard Reeves February 10, 2009 3:08 pmFebruary 10, 2009 3:08 pm

On the morning of his 17th day as President, John F. Kennedy was still in bed at 8 a.m. and, as was his habit, reading The New York Times. One glance at the front page and he exploded, calling his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara and saying: “What
the hell is this ….”

Not good. Kennedy’s most powerful campaign line had been: “We are facing a gap on which we are gambling with our survival …”

McNamara, a Republican who had been the president of Ford Motors, was considered the best of the new president’s Cabinet choices. He may have been the best and the brightest, but he was a political amateur. The
evening before, McNamara had invited reporters covering the Defense Department into his office for drinks and a get-acquainted session. Unfortunately, the new guy did not know the rules of the game.

Was J.F.K. right that presidents could always ‘explain away’ campaign rhetoric that wasn’t exactly true?

The session was “N.F.A.” — not for attribution — which McNamara thought was the same as “off the record.” In fact, the phrase meant reporters could use anything the secretary
said as long as they did not identify him as the source.

McNamara rather casually smiled when reporters asked about the missile gap. He said there was no such thing, and if there was any gap it was heavily in favor of the United States. When the president called, McNamara
stammered that he was sorry, but that, in fact, the United States could absorb a full-scale Soviet missile attack and still have more than enough nuclear missiles to destroy 100 Soviet cities, kill 100 million Soviet
citizens and destroy 80 percent of that country’s industrial capacity in a few hours.

A presidential news conference had already been scheduled for Feb. 8 and, predictably, White House correspondents asked Kennedy about the disappearing gap: “It would be premature to reach a judgment as to whether
there is a gap or was no gap,” he replied.

He was lying. He knew there was no gap. He had been told so by Central Intelligence Agency briefers during the campaign. On the day before he became president, Kennedy was told by his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower,
that there was no missile gap. The United States had a huge advantage, said Eisenhower, “and one invulnerable weapon, Polaris.” These were the nuclear missiles aboard United States Navy submarines
in the oceans off the coasts of the Soviet Union.

(Later CIA reports indicated that during the 1960 campaign, the Soviets probably had only three intercontinental ballistic missiles. At the time, though, the C.I.A. estimated, incorrectly, there were about 90 Soviet
ICBMs and 200 bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, although none of those bombers had the range to reach the United States. At the same time, the United States had 108 missiles that could reach Soviet targets
and were in the process of deploying 30 more in Turkey. In addition, the United States Air Force had 600 nuclear-ready bombers capable of reaching Soviet targets.)

The McNamara blunder into truth-telling was not only problem Kennedy had with talented amateurs. Walter Heller, who went from the campus of the University of Minnesota to become chairman of the president’s Council
of Economic Advisers, had briefed reporters on the administration’s plans to deal with an ongoing recession, and gave them actual numeric goals that began appearing in newspapers around the country. “Never
do that again,” Kennedy told Heller in an angry telephone call. “Forget those numbers. Numbers can come back to haunt you. Words can always be explained away.”

Kennedy had learned quickly, as Barack Obama is now, the gap between campaigning and governing. Events are in the saddle for a president, whether the 35th or 44th. Obama planned to be a president getting us out of Iraq.
Now he is trying to get us out of debt.

As for the missile gap, and the White House’s inability to explain away McNamara’s numbers, Kennedy decided he had to get some real numbers out there. He was afraid that the Soviet Union and other countries
that might believe that the United States was as weak as he had said it was in his campaign rhetoric. He dispatched the deputy secretary of Defense, Roswell Gilpatric, to give a speech — which Kennedy himself
edited line by line and number by number — which could be called saber-rattling but was actually saber-describing.

Speaking to the National Business Council at Hot Springs, Va., Gilpatric laid it out: “This nation has nuclear retaliatory force of such lethal power that an enemy which brought it into play would be an act of
self-destruction on his part … The total number of our nuclear delivery vehicles, tactical as well as strategic, is in the tens of thousands; and of course, we have more than one warhead for each vehicle.”

The businessmen in Virginia might have wondered why he was telling them this. But they were not the real audience. The audience was Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and other world leaders. After the speech, Kennedy
reinforced the message by saying he was ready to do whatever it took “to protect our lead.”

Your header,“Missile Gaps and Other Broken Promises,” is very misleading and incorrectly suggests that Obama has a huge credibility problem. The NY Times is attempting to invent problems before they
even exist. I am staring to wonder about the Times’ credibility.

It’s nice that you wrote a piece on Kennedy, but what this has to with Obama is not clear. If you think he is lying like Kennedy did, then you should say what you’re talking about.

A better connection might be that the US establishment was imagining and inventing fearsome opponents. Soviet records show not only that the threat was exaggerated but that they had no desire for a war and were
mainly bluffing to protect their interests. A look at Iran might be helpful.

Obama’s complete lack of experience in realpolitik becomes more apparent with each day that goes by.

The election of such an individual to the highest executive office is a remarkable testament to the naive vulnerability of the most Americans in the face a brilliantly scripted marketing campaigns. Be it a presidentical
campaign or one talking about the latest pill pushed by the profit chasing big Pharma, vast majority of us remain singularly incabale of making truly informed decisions.

One crucial point here however is that JFK and Ike did in fact labor under the illusion of a much larger Soviet ICBM force. This illusion was based on imprecise CIA estimates given in the mid-1950s, and in turn,
the imprecision arose because we did not have photographic recon overflight capability. Satellites were not available until just before the election, and only limited “suicide” flights by manned
aircraft photo missions were used. We guessed, and did so conservatively, hence the impression of a vast Soviet fleet. Also, Kruschev had made a series of bellicose speeches about “missiles rolling off
their assembly lines like sausages,” making everyone nervous. So, in fact, there was a perceived “missile gap” that preceded the campaign and 1960 election, and JFK did not create it, although
he obviously used it to his advantage.

When will this nation get a leader that matches its great potential? When will the people of this nation wake up and show all these charlatans the door? JFK is one of the most admired presidents yet again and again
it has been shown that he was a liar, a cheat and a self-serving opportunist. The verdict on many of our other presidents has been even worse. I, for one, see little in Obama to make me expect otherwise from
him. He is out of his league, yet that seems to be what the American people, in their ignorance, want and need. If only a real, honest man who respected the sanctity of truth and who wasn’t sold out to
the financial cartels could lead us, perhaps we could find our way again. We have certainly strayed far. Perhaps we could live up to the potential of greatness inherent in our Constitution.

Due to the machinery of deception and control I see that is keeping the people of America in ignorance and under control, I am not at all hopeful.

The home page lead-in to this story reads “Can Barack Obama, like J.F.K., “explain away” troublesome campaign rhetoric?” , yet this post doesn’t redeem those words. What exactly
is Barack Obama’s “troublesome campaign rhetoric” that he must, or wants to, explain away? The post itself hints that it might be Iraq, but there is no evidence that he wants to “explain
away” his campaign promises there. Since the election he’s repeatedly said he plans to stick with it.

The JFK history is fascinating. The promised parallels to 44 are not there, at least in the post as I see it. I don’t fault the author of the post, but the lead in is just off-base.

Wait, you mean that President Kennedy lied to get elected? Would a democrat do that…come on, I don’t believe it. That would mean that President Obama is guilty of lieing too. He is our saviour, how
can you even imply such things?

I don’t see the connection between what NYT terms Barack Obama’s so-called “troublesome campaign rhetoric” crisis and JFKs “real” missile crisis- perhaps the power of suggestion
will edge popular opinion?

Can the New York Times explain away a troublesome lack of integrity? The newspaper has become nothing more than a compendium of shoddy reporting, yellow journalism and fraudulent editorials. A sad comedown for a
once great newspaper. The big question is whether the New York Times will still be in business at the end of the Obama administration.

So… the American people were duped to vote for JFK. He blatantly lied. Does the author imply that Obama duped us, too? …Although, in fairness, which elected politician didn’t dupe us to get
into his/her office? That seems to be the game: the biggest liar gets the prize. Still, I think Obama fibbed less than the GOP “mavericks”.

Kennedy frequently told blatant lies. The JFK biography by Richard Reeves documented this and many other personality flaws of our Sainted President.

The more I observe our leadership “class” — presidents, members of Congress, corporate executives, university presidents — the more I’m persuaded that most of them share a single
talent: public relations. They present different versions of a given story to various constituencies, hoping to obtain or maintain the support of each without losing that of the others. It’s only long
after the fact, when history is written, that we learn the truth.

Recent remarks by Obama about the enormous severity of the current recession provide an example of bend-the-truth tactics whose PR objective is to pass bailout legislation that the Wall Street Journal described
as 90% social policy and 10% economic policy.

That’s probably an exaggeration, but the Democratic-controlled Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 37% of all dollars in the House bill would be expended over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, our
current unemployment rate of 7.6% is far below the 10.8% observed in 1982. The worst economy since the Great Depression? Not hardly . . .

It is in this sense that the present opinion piece about the missile gap — by Richard Reeves, the above-mentioned JFK biographer — is relevant. It is Obama’s wish to tell us how BAD the current
situation is and how NECESSARY his proposals are . . . without acknowledging the specific facts that would cause us to believe otherwise.

Those who worship Obama — or any other leader — would do well to remember the JFK missile-gap lesson. Maybe Obama is great, but we know far too little to leap to that conclusion so early in his term.
If he is great, then he will respect our right to keep a close eye on what he’s up to and call him to account for errors in judgment. That, after all, is what democracy is all about.

“When will this nation get a leader that matches its great potential?”

why do you assume we need one? we need someone who fills the executive chair to serve as a check to legislative power. we need someone who can represent us in foreign affairs. why do so many people think the president
needs to be some kind of leader who guides us to bigger and better things?

Allowing Geithner to go public today with a very sketchy “new and improved” TARP plan and jamming through the heavily partisan stimulus plan are two clear examples of Obama’s inexperience. Add
these gaffes to the botched cabinet and staff appointments and it is easy to see why confidence is waning. The devil is in the details and unlike campaigning, running the country is a detailed endeavor.

What's Next

About

As Barack Obama readies to take the office of president, which of his predecessors offers the best model for getting off on the right foot? The 100 Days blog seeks to answer just that question during Mr. Obama's
first three months in office. Five presidential biographers will discuss the early days of five 20th-century presidents – Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan – shedding new light on the struggles faced by those men entering the Oval Office and comparing their experiences with those Mr. Obama will face in his first 100 days.

A close looks at polls of reactions to Ronald Reagan’s first few months in office provide striking parallels to what polls now find about opinions of President Obama. A consideration of the Reagan experience may well give some clues as to what
lies ahead for the 44th president. Read more…